Orly says: Ignore Warning

In a recent email, Dentist and Attorney Orly Taitz advises visitors to her malware-infested site to ignore the warnings popped up by some browsers. She said:

You can find more info on my website orlytaitzesq.com Please ignore Google pop up warning, the site works fine or you can disable Jawa [sic] script on your tool bar.

Disabling JavaScript is a general technique for making your browser more safe, and limiting what website software can do to your computer. However, it also makes some content (such as Obama Conspiracy Theories polls, comment previews and the like) stop working. Reports are that Internet Explorer provides no warning and allows the visitor’s computer to be infected. She should fix her site.

Hey, Doc, here’s a letter from 1798 from Nicholas George, Esq. about the alien and sedition act:

Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might have been divided into two classes; natural born citizens, or those born within the state and aliens or such as were born out of it. The first by their birth-right became entiled to all the privileges of citizens; the second were entitled to none, but such as were held out and given by the laws of the respective states, prior to their emigrating to them.

That’s one of the earliest definitions of natural born I have found. Western Miscellany by Benjamin Franklin Ellis appears to use “native born” and “natural born citizen” as synonyms in 1778.

Oh, and the Wong Kim Ark briefs (here) are a fascinating read. Collins makes all the arguments the birthers are making today – no common law, subject to, etc. He even makes the argument that surely we cannot allow the lower court ruling to stand because then the children of Chinese citizens could share in the ability to run for President. Each of these arguments are decimated by Ashton’s brief.

It’s really amazing how the birthers have simply recycled arguments that were rejected by the court a century ago.

Thanks Greg, I was wondering who St. George Tucker was quoting in his seminal 1803 treatise were he said:

“A very respectable political writer makes the following pertinent remarks upon this subject. “Prior to the adoption of the constitution, the people inhabiting the different states might be divided into two classes: natural born citizens, or those born within the state, and aliens, or such as were born out of it.”

Tucker also said the president must be native-born citizen, so he apparently didn’t get Donofrio’s memo that natural-born and native-born were different.

I haven’t been able to find much in the 18th century either. Probably would need access to one of the huge law libraries to really research that era.

The first time I saw NBC used was by a committee of the Continental Congress, chaired by Jefferson, in 1777 that stated the our foreign ministers should be NBCs. Birthers, of course, would claim there were no NBCs in 1777. A few years later Jefferson wrote a letter suggesting ministers be natives. See, Michael Cluskey, The political text-book, or encyclopedia: containing everything necessary for the reference of the politicians and statesmen of the United States, pg. 293 (1857)

The other early use was in state naturalization statutes where is was used in the identical context as “natural born subject.” In Massachusetts, they used these terms interchangably in nearly identical statutes sometimes in the same year. These acts are summarized here:

In 1797, Massachusetts proposed to amend the US Constitution by requiring congress and the VP to be natural born citizens but titled the act “RESOLVE REQUESTING THE SENATORS AND REPRESENTATIVES IN CONGRESS TO PROPOSE AN AMENDMENT TO THE CONSTITUTION PROVIDING, THAT NONE BUT NATURAL BORN SUBJECTS BE ELIGIBLE TO CERTAIN OFFICES.” See Acts and laws of the Commonwealth of Massachusetts, pg. 211 (1897. Clearly NBC and NBS meant the same thing to them.

James Iredell, [spelling corrected, Doc C.] leading federalist at the 1788 North Carolina ratification convention and member of the first supreme court said during the convention that the president must be a native. Elliot’s Debates –DEBATES IN THE CONVENTION OF THE STATE OF NORTH CAROLINA, ON THE ADOPTION OF THE FEDERAL CONSTITUTION, pg 195-196.

A newspaper in 1788 said the following:”Observations upon that clause – A Natural Born citizen here clearly means a person born in the American colonies, while they were under the British government.” City Gazette, South Carolina, November 24, 1788.

I forgot that John Adams suggested in 1783 that the treaty with England provide that their subjects have the rights of natural born citizens here and our citizens have the rights of natural born subjects there. Not sure that adds much either.

In 1803, his son appeared to think it meant born in the US:

“Mr. Adams suggested an objection to the amendment as it stood, which appeared to arise out of the treaty of cession of Louisiana. His original idea was adverse to the limitation to natural-born citizens, as superfluous; but, as it stood, the terms upon which Louisiana was acquired had rendered a change necessary, for it appeared to him that there was no alternative, but to admit those born in Louisiana as well as those born in the United States to the right of being chosen for President and Vice President.” John Quincy Adams, 11/23/1803, ABRIDGMENT OF THE DEBATES OF CONGRESS, FROM 1789 TO 1856, Volume III, John Rivers, pg. 21, (1857)

I need information, help in research
August 27th, 2009
I need info: who are the major shareholders of Facebook, who are the executives and board members. Are they US citizens. If they are US citizens – they can be found guilty of aiding and abetting treason. I need to figure if they can be included as additional defendants on RICO charges in the existing action by filing a second amended complaint or I might need to file a separate action.

A complaint to the Judicial Council won’t help her. All she is alleging is legal error, and the Judicial Council does not have jurisdiction to consider or resolve complaints aleging legal error. That’s what courts of appeal are for.

Hey buddy boy, I’m going to give it to you straight: I’m Jewish and a Zionist, so you can’t accuse me of bias. Orly Taitz is an unbalanced, petty, vindictive refusenik. She’s an incompetent lawyer, and a mediocre dentist. She spends her day licking her wounds, instead of moving forward. She is the one name calling, and trying to remove the first black president by circulating vicious rumors.

I am tired of her and her coterie of malcontents. Why don’t you and Crazy Eileen go live in Eastern Europe, where there is a resurgence of fascism.

“Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. No person shall be convicted of treason unless on the testimony of two witnesses to the same overt act, or on confession in open court.”

This is the ONLY crime that is specifically defined (and limited) in the Constitution.

Speaking of Wong rejecting all the birthers’ arguments more than 100 years ago, I point to section IV of the decision (pages 666-667):

It was contended by one of the learned counsel for the United States that the rule of the Roman law, by which the citizenship of the child followed that of the parent, was the true rule of international law, as now recognized in most civilized countries, and had superseded the rule of the common law, depending on birth within the realm, originally founded on feudal considerations.

But at the time of the adoption of the Constitution of the United States in 1789, and long before, it would seem to have been the rule in Europe generally, as it certainly was in France, that, as said by Pothier, “citizens, true and native-born citizens, are those who are born within the extent of the dominion of France,” and “mere birth within the realm gives the rights of a native-born citizen, independently of the origin of the father or mother, and of their domicil…The general principle of citizenship by birth within French Territory prevaided until after the French Revolution, and was affirmed in successive constitutions, from the one adopted by the Constituent Assembly in 1791 to that of the French Republic in 1799.

The decision points out that by 1869, having alien parents made you ineligible for citizenship in Germany, Switzerland, Sweden and Norway, but did not in Holland, Denmark and Portugal. You could get citizenship despite alien parents with a little hoop-jumping in France, Belgium, Spain, Italy, Greece and Russia.

So, the next time someone tells you that Vattel, writing in French, said that there was a universal, international, understanding that “natural-born” citizenship passed only to the children of citizens, you can tell them that not even France had that rule!

(And, for jtx, who keeps quoting a British statute writte in 1948 as if that decides who gets to be a US citizen, I’ll quote again from Wong: “[I]t is the inherent right of every independent nation to determine for itself, and according to its own constitution and laws, what classes of persons shall be entitled to its citizenship.”)

And, just a thought, but if we assume for a second that at the founding of the country, the natural-born citizen clause did mean that this super-citizenship descended only to children of two citizen parents, there comes a Constitutional conflict in the form of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Here’s an article about the issue in the case of children born abroad to unmarried parents, one a citizen and one not. If the father is the citizen, he has to jump through difficult hoops before his child turns 18, or that child loses his citizenship. This was the issue before the court in Rogers v. Bellei. There, the court was okay with it, sort of, in part because the child was born overseas, and so was neither a citizen by birth or naturalization, but by operation of law. It also doesn’t review immigration and naturalization decisions with as much scrutiny as laws and decisions in other areas.

Consider, however, the same situation for a child born in the US. Now that child is entitled, by the 14th Amendment, to equal protection. Her citizenship is based on birth within the United States. Her citizenship isn’t from the operation of immigration or naturalization laws.

The court has read equal protection to mean that laws based on gender distinctions, a person’s alienage, and a person’s illegitimacy are all subject to heightened scrutiny. The “super-citizen” imagined by birthers implicates ALL these distictions. A person whose parents are aliens cannot be a super-citizen. A person born to one alien parent and one citizen-parent cannot be president unless his parents weren’t married, in which case he can be president if his citizen parent was his mother, but not his father.

An example of the distaste the Court has for distinctions based on alienage is found in Hirabayashi v. United States. The court said, “[d]istinctions between citizens solely because of their ancestry” was “odius to a free people whose institutions are founded upon the doctrine of equality.”

It is a well known rule of statutory construction that when two laws are in conflict, the later adopted one wins. As the Supreme Court put it in Smith v. Robinson (1984):

Accordingly, our guide must be the familiar principle of statutory construction that conflicting statutes should be interpreted so as to give effect to each but to allow a later enacted, more specific statute to amend an earlier, more general statute only to the extent of the repugnancy between the two statutes.

So, IF the founders wanted a super-citizen to be President, that requirement could not possibly survive the heightened scrutiny required by the 14th Amendment. Even if we assume only the heightened scrutiny of gender and illegitimacy discrimination, the government would have to show that requiring super-citizen status substantially relates to an important government interest.

What’s the government interest? To prevent foreign influence over the President, presumably. The court defines “substantially related to” to mean that it’s the least restrictive means of achieving that important government interest. Here, banning non-super-citizens doesn’t even seem like a rational way to prevent foreign influence, much less the least restrictive way. Other, less restrictive ways of preventing foreign influence: voting for people not likely to be influenced by foreign powers.

The 14th Amendment was designed to make a clear distinction between State citizens and citizens of the United States.

Consequently, we could have a situation where a Hawaii bureaucrat states BO is a citizen of the US according to our revised statutes. Yet, BO could be found not to be a Natural Born Citizen of the United States as determined by a definition prescribed by the Judicial Branch of the US Government.

I have recited, some by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; and it is a fact well worthy of attention that the course of decision of our courts and the present settled doctrine is, that all these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizen solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts.

It seems to me that American history exhibits a trend from state sovereignty to federal sovereignty (with the occasional throwback). While the original constitution gave Congress the exclusive power of naturalization, it did not give explicit authority for the Congress to make laws as to who was a natural born citizen (that is, a citizen at birth). Originally, citizenship was determined by State law and common law (in states where there was no statute.) The first Congress, however, made such a law in 1790 about one group who were natural born citizens (those born to citizens overseas).

And the 14th amendment removed a state’s ability to exclude someone from citizenship.

The Supreme Court (in Rogers v Bellei) decided however, that the 14th amendment did not apply to all citizens, only those born in the US and those naturalized. Citizens at birth born overseas are not citizens entitled to the protections of the 14th Amendment.

1. Over 70 years ago the Court, in an opinion by Mr. Justice Gray, reviewed and discussed early English statutes relating to rights of inheritance and of citizenship of persons born abroad of parents who were British subjects. United States v. Wong Kim Ark, 169 U.S. 649, 668 -671 (1898). The Court concluded that “naturalization by descent” was not a common-law concept but was dependent, instead, upon statutory enactment. The statutes examined were 25 Edw. 3, Stat. 2 (1350); 29 Car. 2, c. 6 (1677); 7 Anne, c. 5, 3 (1708); 4 Geo. 2, c. 21 (1731); and 13 Geo. 3, c. 21 (1773). Later Mr. Chief Justice Taft, speaking for a unanimous Court, referred to this “very learned and useful opinion of Mr. Justice Gray” and observed “that birth within the limits of the jurisdiction of the Crown, and of the United States, as the successor of the Crown, fixed nationality, and that there could be no change in this rule of law except by statute . . . .” Weedin v. Chin Bow, 274 U.S., at 660 . He referred to the cited English statutes and stated, “These statutes applied to the colonies before the War of Independence.”

We thus have an acknowledgment that our law in this area follows English concepts with an acceptance of the jus soli, that is, that the place of birth governs citizenship status except as modified by statute. [Emphasis added]

Rep. John A. Bingham commenting on Section 1992 said it means “every human being born within the jurisdiction of the United States of parents not owing allegiance to any foreign sovereignty is, in the language of your Constitution itself, a natural born citizen.” (Cong. Globe, 39th, 1st Sess., 1291 (1866))

I really don’t understand why anyone thinks the opinion of a single congressman 80 years after the founding represents any kind of authority. No other member of the 39th congress that spoke on the issue appears to have agreed with Bingham. He didn’t write the citizenship language in either the 14th amendment or the Civil Rights Act, so why would anyone place his opinion above the others in the 39th congress or earlier congresses that looked to the common law.

Why not quote the Senate judiciary chair and author of the civil rights act language Bingham is talking about:

“By the terms of the Constitution he must have been a citizen of the United States for nine years before he could take a seat here, and seven years before he could take a seat in the other House ; and, in order to be President of the United States, a person must be a native-born citizen. It is the common law of this country, and of all countries, and it was unnecessary to incorporate it in the Constitution, that a person is a citizen of the country in which he is born….I read from Paschal’s Annotated Consitutuion, note 274: “All persons born in the allegiance of the king are natural born subjects, and all persons born in the allegiance of the United States are natural born citizens. Birth and allegiance go together. Such is the rule of the common law, and it is the common law of this country as well as of England. There are two exceptions, and only two, to the universality of its application. The children of ambassadors are, in theory, born in the allegiance of the powers the ambassadors represent, and slaves, in legal contemplation, are property, and not persons.” Sen. Trumbull, Cong. Globe. 1st Session, 42nd Congress, pt. 1, pg. 575 (1872)

Or how about the House judiciary chair of that Congress:

“Every person born within the United States, its Territories, or districts, whether the parents are citizens or aliens, is a natural-born citizen of the United States in the sense of the Constitution……… “It makes a man a subject in England, and a citizen here, and is, as Blackstone declares, ‘founded in reason and the nature of government’ … The English Law made no distinction … in declaring that all persons born within its jurisdiction are natural-born subjects. This law bound the colonies before the revolution, and was not changed afterward.” Rep. Wilson, 10 Cong. Globe, 39th Cong., lst Sess. 1115,1117 (1866)

How about some other people who were members of the 39th Congress:

“One of those principles is that the candidate voted for must be thirty-five years of age; another is that he must have been a citizen of tho United States at the time the Constitution was adopted, or he must be a native-born citizan.” Sen. Davis, 2/2/1865 reported in The presidential counts: a complete official record of the proceedings of Congress at the counting of the electoral votes in all the elections of president and vice-president of the United States; pg. 203 (1877)

“In that instrument no qualification for office is prescribed which rejects the negro. The white man, not native born, may not be President, but the native-born African may be.” Sen. Henderson, Civil Rights Acts Debates, reported in Cong. Globe, 1st Sess. 39th Congress, pt. 1, pg. 387 (1866)

“What is the qualification for the office of President? He must be a native-born citizen of the United States and thirty-five years of age. Nothing more!” Rep. Boutwell, 1/11/69 cited in Great Debates in American History: Civil rights, part 2 Volume 8 of Great Debates in American History: From the Debates in the British Parliament on the Colonial Stamp Act (1764-1765) to the Debates in Congress at the Close of the Taft Administration (1912-1913), United States. Congress, pg. 113 (1913)

it’s the onion that has the real problem. it’s becoming increasingly difficult for them to stay one step ahead of the birfers:

and why are you still on the birth certificate?

it’s moved past that.

i don’t actually believe barry sr is barry jr’s father. if you look at pix after pix of the two together there is not one facial feature in common between them. not one. and i am certain the forensic skull overlap will/has already proven that.

and barry left plenty of utensils and glasses to obtain his DNA from, which as you know, counselor, is perfectly legal if obtained in a public place – even for the POTUS.

what you may not know is DNA can be tested from folks of “african” descent and the location in africa from whence their ancestors arose — sometimes down to the exact tribe (i imagine even the luo) — can be determined.

they certainly have no trouble determining if the DNA is of east african or west african origin.

and the testing can be accomplished in complete anonymity without need of comparison from a relative.

Wow. Just wow. Of what possible relevance could it be who his father is, after all, to the President’s eligibility to run for the office? His other parent was American and he was born in the United States, the last time I checked. Amazing catch.

Looks like Orly is about to wreck someone else’s career. Filed in Texas:

“APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

Plaintiff Captain Dr. Connie Rhodes has received what appear to be facially valid orders mobilizing her to active duty with the United States Army in Iraq on September 5th, 2009 (Exhibit A). Captain Rhodes is both a US army officer and a medical doctor, a flight surgeon. On May 15th of this year 501 brigade out of Fort Campbell, KY, currently stationed in Iraq, has requested a support of medical personal in Iraq. Two days ago, August the 23rd, an order was given through the chain of command via e-mail for Captain Rhodes to arrive in San Antonio TX, Fort Sam Houston for Tactical Combat Medical Care Course (TCMC) to be held from August 30th till September 4t and next day, on September the 5th to arrive in Fort Benning in Columbus GA for immediate deployment to Iraq for a period of one year and twelve days from September 5th, 2009 until September 17th 2010. Captain Dr. Connie Rhodes wants to serve her country and fulfill her tour of duty, however as a US army officer and a medical doctor she has severe reservations regarding legitimacy of Barack Obama as the Commander in Chief and repercussions of her service under his orders, particularly in light of mounting evidence of him having allegiance to other Nations and citizenship of Kenya, Indonesia and Great Britain.”

Also, Reagan and W got elected by pandering to anti-science Christians. The Kansas State School Board once voted against teaching evolution, and there was a similar case in Dover, Pennsylvania.

Google ‘dominionism’ and be appalled. We could have ended up with Sarah Palin, a dominionist and apocalyptic Christian. Evangelicals love Israel, but hate Judaism and Jewish culture. Hagee and Palin’s church preach that daily.

I was aware of Father Coughlin et al, but it completely amazes me to see such lunacy on open display in such large groups, such as at the town halls.

I had imagined that before the internet these sorts of deluded ravings would only have been seen by the forensics officers when they discovered the exercise books scattered among the piles ageing newspapers and dog faeces.

Another attorney and legal strategy consultant is coming from out of state to help me with Keyes, Rhodes, appeal of Cook and other cases. He will probably stay here for a few months until we win in court and a legitimate president is chosen in a special election. He will need to settle in the house that is currently empty. If you are within driving distance from Mission Viejo CA and have some items that you can donate to help this attorney get settled, please let me know. Big part of the work is done by him pro bono. Do you have an old car in drivable condition, that he can use? Furniture, household items, food supplies, anything that might be needed in the house. e-mail me dr_taitz@yahoo.com

It looks like Orly’s blog has become a re-publication site for various right-wing fringe writers.

It isn’t just Taitz’s. Ever since they got shot down, the American Grand Jury’s site has turned into a republishing site. tRSoL’s content is mostly warmed over WND, Donofrio, or Apuzzo. Donofrio has been singing variants of the same song for nearly year; Apuzzo as well.

The birfer movement has really been lacking new ideas, and is just recycling old ones. The lawsuits are also decreasing (and the new ones just rehash the old, failed ones).

Birtherdom is starting to turn on Orly. I think two of the biggest things she has going against her with that crowd is she’s not a Christian like them and she’s not a natural born citizen. She is stumbling and I bet that is the excuse they finally use to dump her: that she can’t really be trusted. Watch Birtherdom start to “cleanse” itself of anyone who is not of their “master race” of Christian, super-citizens – people who can trace their heritage in this country back to the Revolution. The birthers’ white supremist slip is starting to show.

One of the striking scenes at last night’s memorial for Ted Kennedy was a quick reunion between John Edwards and his longtime political guru David Axelrod, who shared an embrace and chat in the lobby of the JFK Library.

Edwards seemed to do most of the talking. Axelrod — who crafted Edwards’ “Two Americas” message in 2004 before becoming President Obama’s main political adviser for the ’08 election — seemed to be doing most of the consoling, patting Edwards’ back and smiling as the former senator and ’04 vice presidential candidate spoke expressively.

What I am telling you is the truth! I just got a call from him and he is getting intel from a protected souces. I want to give his name but I cant because he is working on the inside of this at Fort Brag brig.I just found out Thatthere arethousand of military men who are on the east coast Jails (uniform and not uniform men)that they are getting ready to move them over seas by December this year so we can’t help them over there, and UN troops are getting ready to come in to take military control of guns, and the goverment is trying to put our votes on eletronic means to control our votes, Just like they are doing our medical records! And that inturment camp ( just as they did with the japanese)our getting ready for us who speak out against the goverment and Obama. Im not just doing this because I am a girlfriend with her guy in jail! Why would I give my real name in this? I lived in arkansas for 24 years in a small town in Dardanelle ark. And now I live in Buckeye az.You can believe me or not But I know the truth !! I know this man is a hero, and He has been hidden from everyone for what he has done for this country! Do you think everyone like the CIA has there namesplastered all over? Well heres one you can check ask.Condi Rice she was with him on the day of Dec 24,2008 Ask her! Jon Kyl knows Him too! so does John McCain the chicken shit!!! Check that! I am insulted that you don’t believe me.. Why would I lie? Yes I Love this man but that doesn’t prove that I am not telling the truth on what I say and what I have lived threw! So don’t believe me but I am going to keep putting out the word If Obama is not STOP our country is going down to ONE WORLD RULE! The last thing he told me today is that remember what I hold true! TO PROTECT OUR COUNTRY FROM EMENIES FORGIAN OR DOMESTIC! AND THAT IS ONE RULE HE LIVES BY!!! This is his rank,SO1 SEAL/FPR WARFARE GROUP 3 Pearl Harbor. How would I know this If he hasn’t told me! And far as the Judge L.D.Moore he is beening protected by Navy Seal ret, So know one will try to kill him again. Do you think they would put that on the front page of the news paper? Look what they are hiding in that Health care bill! You know this government has hid many things from the public for many years!!Theseseals were with my guys team for years. I have told you everything I can without hurting what he is trying to do! Or risk his life and the men who are with him in that brig, All 250 of them!He wants me to tell you and the others to let the people of America know what this President is doing and to get ready for the shit to hit the fan very soon , by the end of this year. I asked for paper work by he can’t do that because they are on chips and if they get them to me then they will find the source who is helping him and he can’t risk that at this point..He needs to do what he needs to do!! I trust him with my LIFE! And he has proved that to me already in ways you will never know! THIS man even losted his2 nephew in mogandish in 2004, When the terrorist caught them andbeat them,broke every bone in their young bodies,cut their pirvate parts off and stuff them in theirs mouths and poke their eyes out and burned them alive and cut the theirnecks and watch the people kicked them to death, and He watched this ontaped and you tell me if I am telling the truth!And they were 21 and 24 Marines,6 other men died that day and I know who cause this for 50 million dollars!!!!!So just tell the people what is happen on, Let them know what is going on in this country ,whether or not you believe me!!!! It is happening NOW!!! Our Freedom will be gone very soon!!! And to quote him “NOW RIGHT NOW BEFORE OBAMA SHIPS THEM OVER SEAS WHERE NO ONE CAN HELP THEM!!! I was told by him they will put him on that world court and you know that he will be hanged and men who are in CIA will be too, if they are found guilty in there eyes!!! So look at history for that fact!!!
AS GOD AS MY WITNESS I AM TELLING THE TRUTH!!!
Donna Marie Weatherford
HOOAW TO MY GUY AND TO MEN MEN WHO ARE WITH HIM!
—–

Yep I saw it and here is today’s epic:
“To:
“Orly Taitz”
There may be some truth to Donna Weatherford’s claims that many special forces have been locked up, however, something like this would be secret and hard to verify publicly. The naval rank she identified of her source does exist.

Also, it has been previously speculated that Obama is actually an agent of Islam and world order. If the claim that Obama after only a month or so of being President changed the visa system to allow “religious visas” as a fast track to getting into the US, then there could now be over a million new “holy-warriors” in the US since January.

You may be interested in this data:

Form Number: DS-260.
Respondents: Aliens applying for an immigrant visa.
Estimated Number of Respondents: 700,000.
Estimated Number of Responses: 700,000.
Average Hours per Response: 120 minutes (2 hours).
Total Estimated Burden: 1,400,000 hours per year.
Frequency: Once per respondent.

This was a “Direct Determination” directive by the President to get this moving quickly. Not once, but twice for what would be a total of 1.4 million new visas.

Also, some have speculated that our forces that could protect us here in the US are being moved to Afghanistan (now 40 more thousand), while UN troops are coming in. Tipping the balance for sure, all that would be left are some national guard.

While none of this may be the case, it is somewhat alarming … and the data showing something potentially going on that isn’t in the US best interest”

One has to feel for Donna – not only is her warrior-hubby-to-be illegally incarecerated, but those bastards at Walmart are out to get her too, as per crazy posting #2 on another blog:

I got hurt a Wal Mart DC in Buckeye AZ.. ON nov 9 2004 I have since been Terminated from there. I Had to get a lawyer to fight wal Marts workman’s comp to get the help I needed and this is still going on threw th e courts till this day,, I am now on food stamps and on AHCCCS in Az. I should not have been on goverment Help, Wal Mart should stand up to the plate and did the right thing by me..I was a good employee OF 5 years I was the only female mechanic In the whole country(tech1) and now I am on my way to being Homeless, and All because of Wal Mart not doing the right thing for It’s employees. I am mad that they can do what they want to the employees and no one stands up for them… Keep fighting everyone and Stop Wal Mart

“Watch Birtherdom start to “cleanse” itself of anyone who is not of their “master race” of Christian, super-citizens – people who can trace their heritage in this country back to the Revolution. The birthers’ white supremist slip is starting to show.”

If you remember, I have been saying this from the very beginning. And I predicted this: she’s a refusenik and a dual citizen. The right wing is white supremacist at its core. We are far better off with Democrats. Evangelicals only support Israel so there will be a Second Coming, and they are opposed to any peace settlement, because that will upset their theatre.

(Does that mean facebook is not of the Obama Nazi party of Chicago Thugs, or that the righteous may claim a victory over the forces of evil? And what of restoretherepublic.net? Are we to still join that site and shun facebook?)

I live in a community with a heavy military and retired military presence. This woman is crazier than anyone I’ve ever met. I’ll be very vigilant in case any of my neighbors disappear. So far, everyone is accounted for. I have never in my 40 years as a Military Dependent, both active duty and retired, met anyone anywhere like this. Is she really who she claims to be or is this some joke by someone?

I get that Misha. I guess there are Christian refusniks as well. And the amen chorus-I know a few of them. I try to keep my distance. I was told I could not be a supporter of the existence and prosperity of the Jewish State unless I bought into their theology-and that is a polite way of putting it. So I left that denomination and group and went to a saner place to worship. Now I realize just how loonie these people have become.

Still, Taitz asks, “anyone familiar with Guardian? Are they really that bad?”

As if the display of ignorance isn’t embarassing enough, how about the failure to do some perfunctory research on who is interviewing you? Did Taitz learn nothing from speaking with the OC Weekly‘s reporter or appearing on MSNBC?

The Guardian describes itself as “cetre-left”. Doesn’t sound very pro-birfer.

Orly is all about Orly. Sometimes we have children in preschool who will want attention so badly they will misbehave. The consequences don’t matter as long as attention is garnered. Orly is like that. I don’t see her as being adult.

Sounds like she thinks there’s going to be evidence presented. Oh, to be there to see the moment when St Judge Carter, brave Patriot and Marine becomes “stinking Obot” or “they have gotten to him”. The courthouse in Santa Ana is going to be birther central that day!

Welcome

Obama Conspiracy Theories since 2008 has been your des­tination for conspiracy theories and fringe views about Barack Obama. Having an argu­ment with your buddies at the office? You're in the right place. Check out our featured articles. If you don't agree with what you see, feel free to add your thoughts to the over 225,000 comments others have left. To leave a comment not on the current articles, visit the Open Thread.

Quote of the day

Quotes of the day are intended to represent what is being said by people on both sides of the birther question. They do not necessarily represent the views of this web site.

I booby trapped the front door, the back door and the dog door, and I don't even have a dog. Try coming through that door and see what happens. Harry Reid looks like a Beauty Queen compared to what's gonna happen if you show up at my house.

Conspiracies

Sometimes people leave comments designed to offend or outrage the reader, and invoke a firestorm of protest in response. These are the Internet trolls. Replying to them is feeding them and they will come back for more. Refusing to play their game encourages them to go away.